b sen judgment english

8/8/2019 B Sen Judgment English

1/54

Court:- Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)(Sitting Bench: B.P. Verma)

Session Serial Number: 182/2007

Chhattisgarh GovernmentBy Reservation Centre, Ganj, -----------------------Prosecution

Raipur (Chhattisgarh)// Versus //

1. Pijush (Piyush) alias Buboon Guha

S/o Sunil Kumar Guha, age 40 years, Occupation

Tendu leaf trader, resident of Sagarpara

Police Station Jaalangi, District Murshidabad

Howrah 75 (West Bengal)

2. Dr. Vinayak (Binayak Sen) S/o

Dr. D.P. Sen, age 60 years, Occupation Doctor

Resident of A-26, Surya Apartment, Katora Talab

Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

3. Narayan Sanyal alias Naveen alias Vijay

S/o Late J.N. Sanyal alias T.N. Sanyal

Age 74 years, Occupation nothing

Resident of P-7 Senhati Colony, Diamond Harbour Road

Kolkata 7000034

Thana Behala, District Kolkata

(West Bengal) ----------------------------------------

Accused

Shri T.S. Pandya, Special Public Prosecutor for the prosecution

Shri S.K. Farhan, Advocate for the accused Pijush (Piyush) Guha

Shri Surendra Singh and Shri Mahendra Dubey, Advocates for the accusedDr. Binayak Sen


2/54

Shri Hashim Khan, Advocate for the accused Narayan Sanyal

// ORDER//

(Announced today, dated 24th of December, 2010)

1. The charges against the accused under sections 121(a) of the Indian

Penal Code (IPC), 124(a) of the IPC or 124(a) of the IPC read with section

120B of the IPC, section 8(1) of the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act,

2005 (CSPSA) or 8(1) of the CSPSA read with section 120B of the IPC,

section 8(2) of the CSPSA or section 8(2) of the CSPSA read with 120B of

the IPC, section 8(3) of the CSPSA or section 8(3) of the CSPSA read with

section 120B of the IPC, section 8(5) of the CSPSA or section 8(5) of theCSPSA read with section 120B of the IPC, section 10(a) of the Unlawful

Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) or section 10(a) of the UAPA read

with 120B of the IPC, section 20 of the UAPA, section 21 of the UAPA,

section 38(2) of the UAPA, and section 39(2) of the UAPA are that on or

before or around the date of 06.05.2007 [6 May 2007], on Station Road,

Raipur (Chhattisgarh), in Central Jail Raipur (Chhattisgarh) or Central Jail

Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) or Katora Talab Raipur (Chhattisgarh) or Hotel

Mahendra Raipur or Hotel Gitanjali Raipur, they conspired to wage war, or

conspired to an attempt to wage such war or conspired to abet such war

against the Indian state or the state government, and by words, either

spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise,

brought or attempted to bring into hatred or contempt, or excited or

attempted to excite disaffection towards the Government established by

law in India, and thus committed sedition or conspired to commit sedition,

and were a member of an unlawful organization, or took part in meetings or

activities of any such organization or contributed or received or solicited

any contribution or conspired to do so, and not being a member of the

unlawful organization contributed or received or solicited contribution or

harboured any member of the unlawful organization, or conspired to do so,

and managed or assisted in the management of the unlawful organization,

or promoted or assisted in promoting a meeting of the unlawful

organization or in any way indulged in any activity of the unlawful

organization in any manner or through whatever medium or device, or

conspired to do so, or committed or abetted or attempted to commit any

unlawful activity, or conspired to do so, and was a member of an unlawful

association, or took part in meetings of such association, or contributed to,

or received or solicited any contribution for the purpose of such association,

or in any way assisted in the operations of such association, or conspired to

do so, and was a member of a terrorist organization, knowingly held any

property derived or obtained from commission of any terrorist act or

acquired through the terrorist fund, and associated themselves with a

terrorist organisation with intention to further its activities, and with the


3/54

intention to further the activity of a terrorist organisation, invited support

for the terrorist organization, arranged meetings or addressed such

meetings.

2. The undisputed facts in the proceedings are that accused Narayan

Sanyal was transferred from Bilaspur jail to Raipur jail for medical

treatment; that on being given pen and paper, accused Narayan Sanyal

signed the application form for exhibits P. 40 to P. 46; the postcard of

article A-24 was written by Narayan Sanyal which was posted by Albert

Kujur. It is also undisputed that the First Information Report was written on

19.04.2005 [19 April 2005] on Nageshs report and the chargesheet was

produced in the Dantewada court, accused Narayan Sanyal was arrested in

crime record number 9/05 of police station Konta, witness Vijay Thakur

introduced Binayak Sen to Narayan Sanyal, accused Narayan Sanyal was

sent from Dantewada to Central Jail Raipur on 10.04.2006 [10 April 2006].

It is also undisputed that exhibit P.172 is the photo of accused Binayak Sen

sporting a beard, accused Piyush Guha stayed in room no. 109 of the hotel

of witness Balram Moti on 01.05.2007 [1 May 2007].

3. It is also undisputed in the proceedings that during investigation,

accused Dr. Vinayak Sen said that the house was in his wifes name and

asked for the search of the house to be conducted only on her arrival, due

to which the police went to the Surya Apartment again after giving a noticeof 2-3 days, where the body search was undertaken, and papers were

prepared after the house and the lock was unsealed and the broken seal

was impounded. It is also undisputed that it was on the identification by

accused Vinayak Sen that one yellow-coloured letter, one letter in English

from Andhra Pradesh, postcard, letter written by CPIM, CPU, computer, 8

CDs, clothes, seal, the locks put on the channel gate of his house, one

yellow booklet (article A-17 and A-18), one yellow booklet (A-19), one letter

to accused Dr. Vinayak Sen from one Madan Lal Badkhade (article A-20)

and one letter in English titled Human Rights and Naxalite Groups (article

A-21), photocopy of a handwritten letter in English, newspaper cutting,postcard, and one book on Salwa Judum addressed to Vinayak Sen were

seized. It is also undisputed that on 22.01.2007 [22 January 2007]

Advocate Sudha Bharadwaj and Dr. Vinayak Sen came to meet accused

Narayan Sanyal. It is also undisputed that the mobile phone number

94252-06875 belongs to the wife of Dr. Vinayak Sen, Ilina Sen, and that the

material included in article A-19 to article A-36 is material that was taken

out of his house by accused Dr. Vinayak Sen and seized according to

seizure memo, exhibit P.20.


4/54

4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 06.06.2007, all the

police station authorities were informed through a wireless message from

the Police Superintendent, Raipur that concerned police station in-charges

should search suspicious persons, suspicious vehicles, hotel, lodge, rest

houses and dhabas closely. They were also directed to closely search the

street vendors, detain all suspicious characters and carry out legalprocedures against them. Carrying out the said order from Police

Superintendent-Raipur, the station in-charge of GanjRaipur police station,

Inspector B.S. Jagrit, put together a team of police staff and had just left to

investigate suspicious persons, suspicious vehicles, hotel, lodge, resthouse

etc. according to the order, when at 16:10 oclock, he was told by an

informer to keep an eye out for those walking towards the station carrying

bags and to search them well. At that time, he suddenly spotted accused

Piyush Guha walking briskly towards the Raipur railway station. He was

stopped and questioned on the basis of suspicion, but not receiving

satisfactory answers, and becoming increasingly suspicious, his bag wassearched and a lot of Naxalite literature and books and booklets were found

in his bag. Immediately, Inspector B.S. Jagrit informed Police

Superintendent Ajatshatru Bahadur Singh who was visiting the area, city

Police Superintendent Shashi Mohan Singh, police station in-charge Ganj,

Ravindra Upadhyaya of Crime Branch, Raipur, etc., to come to the railway

station right away. Accused Piyush Guha was also interrogated by them

after they reached the railway station, but still no satisfactory answer was

obtained and accused Piyush Guha was brought to the police station Ganj,

where he was closely questioned and his blue-black bag was searched

carefully, in which in addition to the above mentioned Naxalite literatureand magazines, two other magazines supportive of Naxalism and the

Naxalite movement were obtained, Prabhat Patrika, and three hand written

letters were also obtained, of which two were written in English and one in

Bengali. These letters had been sent to some other Naxalite leader and

had been written to inspire terrorist, Naxalite activities. In the body search,

Rs. 49,000 in cash was also recovered from the accused Piyush Guha.

Finding the accused involved in Naxalite and terrorist activities and

unlawful activities against the government, etc., accused Piyush Guha was

taken into custody and the above mentioned articles were lawfully seized,

the accused arrested, after obtaining permission from the senior PoliceSuperintendent, the charges were duly framed according to all the

regulations. After this, city Police Superintendent B.B.S. Rajput was

appointed the investigation officer for preliminary investigation by the

Police Superintendent Raipur, upon whose close questioning, accused

Piyush Guha revealed that the abovementioned three letters were given to

him by the accused Dr. Vinayak Sen. During investigation, it was found that

the above mentioned letters concerning Naxalite activities were given to

the accused Dr. Vinayak Sen by the imprisoned Naxalite leader, accused

Narayan Sanyal, during a meeting in the jail. The said letters were given by

the accused Binayak Sen to accused Piyush Guha in order to send them tothe secret code numbers listed in these letters.


5/54

5. During probe, on searching accused Dr. Binayak Sens house, a

postcard addressed to accused Binayak Sen by the jailed accused Narayan

Sanyal, a letter from Naxalite Commander Barkade lodged in Central Jail

Bilaspur addressing accused Binayak Sen as comrade, eight CDs in whichaccused Vinayak Sen is shown to be conversing with the village women and

children in the villages of Salwa Judum and Narayanpur, have been seized.

During the search of the house of accused Dr. Vinayak Sen, a letter written

in English and one booklet containing a banned and objectionable write-up,

as well as cassettes on Salwa Judum, CPU and 8 CD cassettes, etc., were

seized. During investigation, it was found that the accused Narayan Sanyal,

who was lodged in jail, and who is a member of the highest organization of

the Naxalites-Maoists, the Politburo, executed destructive activities of the

Naxalites with the help of accused Binayak Sen and Piyush Guha, which

were found to amount to sedition. And through the medium of BinayakSen and Piyush Guha, accused Narayan Sanyal had executed violent

activities in plains and in urban areas, and was involved in dispersal of

Naxalite propaganda in order to raise money; this led to the arrest of

accused Dr. Binayak Sen and accused Narayan Sanyal through a production

warrant. After the entire investigation was completed, the conviction slip

was prepared which was presented in front of Shri Rajneesh Shrivastav,

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur by Reservation Centre, Ganj-Raipur.

6. Criminal case number 1333/07, Government versus Piyush Guha andtwo others, was registered by Shri Rajneesh Shrivastav, Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Raipur under section 121(a) of Indian Penal Code, 124(a) or

124(a) read with section 120B of IPC, sections 8(1), 8(2), 8(3), 8(5) of the

Chhattisgarh Special Public Securities Act, and section 10(a) of the Unlawful

Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 or sections 10(a), 20, 21, 38(2) and 39(2)

of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the case was assigned

to the Honourable Sessions Court, Raipur vide assignment order dated

24.08.2007 [24 August 2007]. The Honourable Sessions Court, Raipur

transferred this case to the Fast Track Court on 05.09.2007 [5 September

2007] for lawful proceedings.

7. Upon transfer of the case, the Fast Track Court charged the accused

as described in para 1, under sections 121(a) of the Indian Penal Code,

124(a) of the IPC or 124(a) of the IPC read with section 120B of the IPC,

sections 8(1) of the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act or section 8(1)

of CSPSA read with section 120B of the IPC, section 8(2) of the CSPSA or

section 8(2) of the CSPSA read with section 120B, section 8(3) of the CSPSA

or section 8(3) of the CSPSA read with section 120B of the IPC, section 8(5)

of the CSPSA or section 8(5) of the CSPSA read with section 120B of the IPC,section 10(a) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) or


6/54

section 10(a) of the UAPA read with 120B of the IPC, section 20 of the UAPA,

section 21 of the UAPA, section 38(2) of the UAPA, and section 39(2) of the

UAPA. When the specific charges were read out to the accused and

explained to them, the accused denied the charges and requested a trial,

upon which the case was moved to the trial stage.

8. During the trial, this court received the case at the level of the

examination of evidence on 21.10.2009 [21 October 2009], and the rest of

the trial was completed by this court. After the trial, the accused declared

themselves to be innocent during the examination under section 313 of the

Criminal Procedure Code, and stated that they have been falsely implicated

in this case. In addition to this, accused Pijush Guha, Binayak (Vinayak) Sen

and Narayan Sanyal gave different statements in their defence, which are

as below:-

a. Accused Pijush Guha:- Accused Pijush Guha has stated in his

defence that he comes to Raipur frequently in relation with his tendu

leaf business. On May 1st, when the tendu leaf season had started, he

had come to Raipur and was staying in Mahindra Hotel, and that day

itself the police grabbed him from said hotel and kept him blindfolded

for 6 days, which is why he doesnt know where he was kept. Later, on

06.05.2007 [6 May 2007], he was forced to sign some papers and a false

case was made out. He does not know Narayan Sanyal or Vinayak Sen,and he had a ticket to go back to Kolkata on 02.05.2007 [2 May 2007].

b. Accused Vinayak Sen :- Accused Dr. Vinayak Sen has separately

given a written statement, the gist of which is that he is an MBBS doctor

and a member of the PUCL. The police was declaring innocent villagers

to be Naxalites, beating them up and subjecting them to many

atrocities, which was loudly protested by members of the PUCL. Due to

this, senior officials of the police threatened to entrap him with false

charges, and hence he has been falsely implicated in this case.

c. Accused Narayan Sanyal:- Accused Narayan Sanyal has said in

his defence that first a false case was made against him in Andhra

Pradesh, but when he obtained bail in that case, then a false case was

made against him in Dantewada. When the testimonies were taken in

that case, and when no witness against him appeared in the said case,

then the current case was made out. The police threatened him in jail

and forcibly dictated a letter to him to make this false case, and having

falsely charged him with being a Naxalite, want to keep him in jail on


7/54

this wrong basis. He does not know Piyush Guha and hence the question

of sending him a letter does not arise.

9. In support of the charged crime, the prosecution has producedtestimonies of a total of 97 prosecution witnesses. In his defence accused

Dr. Binayak has presented testimonies of 11 defence witnesses. Accused

Narayan Sanyal and Piyush Guha have not presented any witnesses in their

defence.

10. The questions to be decided are:-

(1) Did the accused, on 06.05.2007 [6 May 2007], at Imke (east)railway station road, Raipur(C.G.) or Central Jail, Raipur(C.G.) orCentral Jail, Bilaspur (C.G.) or Katora Talab, Raipur(C.G.) or HotelMahendra or Hotel Geetanjali, Raipur, abet the waging of war againstthe Indian state and the State Government of Chhattisgarh orconspire to wage war against the Indian State and State government(vide section 124A and 120B of IPC 1860) through NaxaliteLiterature, magazines, letter, newspaper, CDs, cassettes, computerCPU and visible representation as means/signs?

(2) Did the accused on the mentioned date, place and time, bringor attempt to bring into hatred or contempt, or excite or attempt toexcite disaffection towards the government established by law in

India, and by doing so commit sedition through Naxalite literature,magazines, letter, newspaper, CDs, cassettes, computer CPU, etc.,writings and visible means/representations which encourage terroristand Naxalite activities and actualize the destructive activities ofNaxalism?

ORDid the accused on the mentioned date, place and time, excite orattempt to excite disaffection towards the government establishedby law in India, and by doing so commit the criminal conspiracy ofsedition through Naxalite literature, magazines, letter, newspaper,CDs, cassettes, computer CPU, etc., writings and visiblemeans/representations, which encourage terrorist and Naxalite

activities and actualize the destructive activities of Naxalism?

(3) Did the accused on the mentioned date, place and time, whilebeing a member of an unlawful organization, participate in meetingsor activities of said unlawful organization or receive a communicationto participate or send such a communication or request acommunication to participate in meetings or activities of suchunlawful organization, through Naxalite literature, magazines, letter,newspaper, CDs, cassettes, computer CPU, etc., writings and visiblemeans/representations, which encourage terrorist and Naxaliteactivities and actualize the destructive activities of Naxalism?

ORDid the accused on the mentioned date, place and time, while beinga member of an unlawful organization participate in meetings or


8/54

activities of said unlawful organization, participate or receive acommunication to participate or send a communication to participateor request a communication to participate in meetings or activities ofsuch unlawful organization, and by doing so commit an offence ofcriminal conspiracy, through Naxalite literature, magazines, letters,

newspapers, CDs, cassettes, computer CPU, etc., writings and visiblemeans/representations, which encourage terrorist and Naxaliteactivities and actualize the destructive activities of Naxalism?

(4) Did the accused on the mentioned date, place and time, notbeing a member of an unlawful organization, participate or receive acommunication to participate or send a communication to participateor request a communication to participate in meetings or activities,and provide shelter to a member of such unlawful organization,through Naxalite literature, magazines, letters, newspapers, CDs,cassettes, computer CPU, etc., writings and visiblemeans/representations, which encourage terrorist and Naxalite

activities and actualize the destructive activities of Naxalism?OR

Did the accused on the mentioned date, place and time, not being amember of an unlawful organization, participate or receive acommunication to participate or send a communication to participateor request a communication to participate in meetings or activities,and provide shelter to a member of such unlawful organization, andby doing so commit an offence of criminal conspiracy, throughNaxalite literature, magazines, letters, newspapers, CDs, cassettes,computer CPU, etc., writings and visible means/representations,which encourage terrorist and Naxalite activities and actualize thedestructive activities of Naxalism?

(5) Did the accused on the mentioned date, place and time,manage affairs of an unlawful organization or help to manage theaffairs of such unlawful organization or patronize and help membersor organize meetings of such unlawful organization or by any meansparticipate in any unlawful activities of said organization or be aninstrument or medium of that organization, through Naxaliteliterature, magazines, letters, newspapers, CDs, cassettes, computerCPU, etc., writings and visible means/representations, whichencourage terrorist and Naxalite activities and actualize thedestructive activities of Naxalism?

ORDid the accused on the mentioned date, place and time, manageaffairs of an unlawful organization or help to manage the affairs ofsuch unlawful organization or patronize and help members ororganize meetings of such unlawful organization or by any meansparticipate in any unlawful activities of said organization or be aninstrument or medium of that organization, and by doing so commitan offence of criminal conspiracy, through Naxalite literature,magazines, letters, newspapers, CDs, cassettes, computer CPU, etc.,writings and visible means/representations, which encourageterrorist and Naxalite activities and actualize the destructiveactivities of Naxalism?


9/54

(6) Did the accused on the mentioned date, place and time, carryout unlawful activities or motivate them or attempt to carry out orplan to carry out such unlawful activities through Naxalite literature,magazines, letters, newspapers, CDs, cassettes, computer CPU, etc.,writings and visible means/representations, which encourage

terrorist and Naxalite activities and actualize the destructiveactivities of Naxalism?OR

Did the accused on the mentioned date, place and time, commit theoffence of criminal conspiracy to carry out or motivate or attempt tocarry out or make a plan to carry out unlawful activities throughNaxalite literature, magazines, letters, newspapers, CDs, cassettes,computer CPU, etc., writings and visible means/representations,which encourage terrorist and Naxalite activities and actualize thedestructive activities of Naxalism?

(7) Did the accused on the mentioned date, place and time, were

members of an unlawful group or continued to be members of saidgroup or take part in the meetings of said group or sentcommunications to said groups or received communications for itsactivities or requested communications or aided the activities of saidorganization through Naxalite literature, magazines, letters,newspapers, CDs, cassettes, computer CPU, etc., writings and visiblemeans/representations, which encourage terrorist and Naxaliteactivities and actualize the destructive activities of Naxalism?

OR

Did the accused on the mentioned date, place and time, commit theoffence of criminal conspiracy by being members of an unlawfulgroup or continuing to be members of said group or taking part in themeetings of said group or sending communications to said groups orreceiving communications for its activities or requestingcommunications or aiding the activities of said organization throughNaxalite literature, magazines, letters, newspapers, CDs, cassettes,computer CPU, etc., writings and visible means/representations,which encourage terrorist and Naxalite activities and actualize thedestructive activities of Naxalism?

(8) Were the accused on the mentioned date, place and timemembers of a gang engaged in terrorist activities or members of a

terrorist organization?

(9) Did the accused on the mentioned date, place and timeknowingly possess property created or acquired through terrorism oracquired through the terrorist fund?

(10) Did the accused on the mentioned date, place and timecommit a crime related to the membership of a terroristorganization?

(11) Did the accused on the mentioned date, place and timecommit a crime related to providing support to a terrorist

organization?


10/54

// Inference and Reasons //

11. Firstly, it would not be irrelevant to mention here that during the

trial, the defence lawyers raised a lot of objections during the direct

examination of the prosecution witnesses, in relation to which the EleventhAdditional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur has noted in the witness documents

of the prosecution witnesses that the objections be resolved at the time of

final resolution in the trial, meaning at the time of verdict. Therefore, the

resolution of said objections is being done in this verdict along with the

appreciation of evidence of the witnesses concerned.

12. Prosecution witness B.S. Jagrit (PW 95), Inspector, said in his

statement that he knows the accused present in this trial. Exhibit P343 is a

clear photograph of accused Piyush Guha. Exhibit P172 is a photograph ofaccused Binayak Sen, who had a beard and moustache at that time, but

presently he does not have a beard and moustache. Exhibit P173 is a

photograph of accused Narayan Sanyal aka Vijay aka Naveen Sanyal.

According to this witness, he was posted at Police Station Ganj as Police

Station In-charge/Inspector on 06.05.2007. On that day he got information

from the police control room, Raipur, to check hotels, lodges,

dharamshalas, railway stations, talkies [movie theatres], etc., and take

action against suspicious people, and he left to do as instructed at 12 pm

and entered that information in the daily diary/register of Ganj police

station. Said diary/register is Exhibit P344, and its true copy is ExhibitP344C, which is attached to the trial transcript.

13. According to the statement of prosecution witness B.S Jagrit (PW 95),

he met Ravindra Upadhyay, city inspector, Raipur and his staff when he was

on the way to check the site. During checking, accused Piyush Guha was

seen walking to the railway station with a bag under suspicious

circumstances, and was stopped by police officers. When questioned, he

sometimes said his residential address was in Kolkata, sometimes Howrah

etc. which raised suspicions. On the basis of this suspicion, his bag wassearched. In his bag were found some clothes, three magazines, including

Maoist magazines, Prabhat Patrika and Peoples March and he also

possessed three hand written letters, two of which were written in English,

one in Bengali, and a Bengali newspaper was found as well. He was also in

possession of Rs.49000. His body search memo was prepared, which Jagrit

brought to the Ganj police station. Inspector Ravindra Upadhayay of police

station Ganj registered his return in the daily diary; the daily diary

concerned is Exhibit D6A (photo copy is Exhibit D6).


11/54

14. Inspector Ravindra Upadhayay (PW 36), supporting the

abovementioned statements of prosecution witness B.S. Jagrit (PW 95), said

that on 06.05.2007, upon receiving information from the police control

room Raipur, he went to the railway station for investigation, where he met

Jagrit and the police party accompanying him. At around 3:45 p.m, he had

received information that he should check a person whose features weredescribed to him. On the basis of the said features, accused Piyush Guha

was stopped and a team of police constables were sent to call nearby

people so that he could be questioned in their presence, but nearby people

did not come. Upon this, people walking on the street were stopped, who

were Anil Kumar Singh and Rajesh Gupta. They told that he is a suspected

person who must be checked and then the bag of Piyush Guha was opened,

where clothes, two Hindi magazines, one English magazine, a newspaper,

three letterstwo of them were in English and one in Bengali, and cash

amounting to Rs.49000, a Motorola mobile and a railway ticket were found.

The said magazines and other stuffs appeared to be Naxalite literature. Onthat ground he was taken to the police station along with Anil Kumar Singh

and Rajesh Gupta. The said bag was brought to the police station, hung on

Piyush Guhas shoulder. On close inspection of the bag, Prabhat patrika, a

Hindi magazine, magazine of CPI(ML-Dandakaranya Committee), one

English magazine-Peoples March Voice of Indian Regulation [sic], three

letterstwo in English, one in Bengali, of which one English letter was

addressed to V and one English letter to P, were found. Also found were

Rs.49000 in cash and a railway ticket (dated 06/05/2007) from Raipur to

Howrah, a Bengali newspaper and a Motorola mobile. On the request of the

accused, the clothes and bag were returned, but the rest of the items wereconfiscated and the seizure memo Exhibit P1 was made, on which his

signature appears from c to part c, and accused Piyush Guhas signature

appears on b to part b. Before going to the police station, a panchanama for

the body search of accused Piyush Guha, Exhibit D1, was made, which has

his, accused Piyush Guhas and the witnesses signatures.

15. Witness of the said seizure, Anil Kumar Singh (PW 1) has testified

that around 10-11 months prior to his testimony, at around 4:00 pm one

day when he was going to the railway station in front of Samrat Talkies, he

saw policemen waving their hands and he stopped. They showed him

accused Piyush Guha and told him to stop for a while, saying that he [the

accused] is a suspicious character who needs to be searched. The accused

was in possession of a blue-black coloured hand bag which he was carrying

on his shoulder and, on being asked, said that his name was Piyush Guha.

On that occasion there was one more person present as witness, whom he

did not know. Policemen asked the accused to open his hand bag; the bag

contained three magazines, three letters and two Bengali newspapers. Out

of three letters, two were in English, one in Bengali and there were bundles

of cash in the bag. Also, the bag had one railway ticket to Kolkata and amobile phone. After that the police team asked him and Piyush Guha to


12/54

come along with them to the police station. The bag was handed over to

Piyush Guha while on the way to the police station. In the police station,

when accused Piyush was questioned by the police regarding the seized

articles, about where had he obtained the letters from, accused Piyush

Guha answered that accused Binayak Sen used to meet accused Narayan

Sanyal in Jail and accused Binayak Sen got the letters from accusedNarayan Sanyal, which accused Binayak Sen gave to him, to take them to

Kolkata.

16. During evidence, the counsels for accused Binayak Sen, Narayan

Sanyal and Piyush Guha objected to recording the above statement of

witness as evidence on the ground that disclosure made by the accused to

the police is not admissible as evidence and hence accused Piyush Guha's

stating the name of Binayak Sen in the presence of a witness is also not

admissible as evidence. In this regard, in their support, case law in Aghnu

Nageshia V. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 119, Udaybhan V. State of U.P. AIR

1882 SC 1118, Mohammad Inayatullah V. State of Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC

483 and Prabhu V. State of U.P. 1963 SC 1113 has been cited. But the

abovementioned witness Anil Kumar Singh is a seizure memo witness, not a

memorandum witness and the statement has been made by this witness

about the facts and circumstances at the time of seizure, which is

admissible as evidence related to the demeanour of accused persons and

their conduct, under Section 8, 10, 17 and 21 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Hence the said objection, being baseless and without merit, is dismissed.

Reliance in this regard is placed on case law in Mohd. Afzal v State of NCT

of Delhi 2005 Cr.L.J. 3950 (SC) and Deepak Payang V. State of Arunachal

Pradesh 2010 Cr.L.J. 2567. Case law produced by accused persons in Aghnu

Nageshia V. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 119, Udaybhan V. State of U.P. AIR

1882 SC 1118, Mohammad Inayatullah V. State of Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC

483 and Prabhu V. State of U.P. 1963 SC 1113 is not applicable because

their facts and circumstances being different from this case.

17. Witness Anil Kumar Singh (PW-1) has further stated that police hadmade seizure memo of the bag and the belongings kept in the bag of

accused Piyush Guha, which is marked as P1, bearing his signature on the

part from A to A and accused Piyush Guha had signed on part B to B of

Exhibit D1 in his presence. On being shown the magazine article A-1 to A-3,

newspaper article A-4 and A-5, article A-6 railway ticket and article A-7

mobile, letters of article A-8, A-9 and A-10 recovered from accused Piyush

Guha, this witness has stated that these articles were recovered from

accused Piyush Guha himself, and has also testified about the recovery of

cash Rs. 49000.00 from accused Piyush Guha. Similar statements have

also been given by witness Inspector B.S. Jagrit (PW 95) and Ravindra

Upadhyay (PW 38). The defence has raised an objection regarding witness


13/54

Anil Kumar Singh being shown the identified articles and being questioned

about them, during the abovementioned testimony, but the said objection,

being baseless, is also overruled same.

18. Witness Inspector B.S. Jagrit (PW 95) and Ravindra Upadhyay (PW 36)

have been cross examined in great detail on behalf of accused persons but

the aforesaid statements of these witnesses regarding seizure have

remained consistent even during the cross examination. Therefore, on the

basis of above statements of witness Anil Kumar Singh (PW-1), witness

Ravindra Upadhyay (PW-36) and witness Inspector B.S. Jagrit (PW-95), and

the details of the seizure memo Exhibit P-1, articles, magazine, newspaper,

railway ticket, Motorola mobile, letters and cash of Rs. 49,000.00,

comprising articles A1 to A10, are certified to have been recovered from

accused Piyush Guha on 06.05.2007.

19. As per the statement of Inspector B.S. Jagrit (PW 95), he had put in

an application with the Superintendent of Police, Raipur in order to obtain

permission for registering the crime, which is Exhibit P 179. As per the

order from part A to A [of the said Exhibit], Superintendent of Police Raipur,

Shri B.S. Maravi, had given order on the said application to register the

crime. Supporting aforesaid facts, B.S. Maravi (PW-69) has said in his

statement that he was posted as Senior Superintendent of Police in Raipur

district in year 2007. During his posting, on 06.05.2007 Police Station In-charge Ganj B.S. Jagrit had submitted an application asking for permission

to register case under Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jansuraksha Adhiniyam 2005

(Chhattisgarh Special Public Safety Act, 2005), enclosed with which were

the seized documents consisting of three magazines, newspaper etc. He,

after perusing the seized documents and after being satisfied upon enquiry

into the complete sequence of events, had granted permission on the same

application form Exhibit P 179 itself, to lodge a case under the Chhattisgarh

Vishesh Jansuraksha Adhiniyam. From the above statements of witnesses, it

is established that Section 8(4) of Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jansuraksha

Adhiniyam 2005 has been lawfully followed.

20. As per the statement of Inspector B.S. Jagrit (PW 95), he had

registered the First Information Report, Exhibit P 344 in this case, on

receiving order Exhibit P 179 from the Superintendent of Police. This

witness has proved his signature on part A to A of the First Information

Report of Exhibit P 344.

21. As per statement of Inspector B.S. Jagrit (PW 95), in this case B.B.S.Rajput, City Superintendent of Police, Urla, Raipur was appointed as


14/54

Investigation Officer by Superintendent of Police, Raipur. Appointment letter

is Exhibit P 345 which carries the signature of Superintendent of Police,

Raipur. Having written letter of Exhibit P 346, after above mentioned order,

he had handed over the case documents including the case diary to City

Superintendent of Police, Urla, B.B.S. Rajput. This witness has further stated

that he, on 06.05.2007 at 17:05 oclock, had arrested accused Piyush Guhaas per arrest memo, Exhibit D 2, and had taken him in police remand. Copy

of the First Information Report, Exhibit P 344, was forwarded to the court

concerned, receipt of which is Exhibit P 85, which has the seal of the

aforesaid court. Similarly, Constable Chhakkan Lal Sahoo (PW 26) has made

a statement regarding his informing the Court of the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Raipur about the arrest of the accused Piyush Guha.

22. Witness Superintendent of Police Raipur B.S. Marawi (PW 69) has

stated that on 08.05.2007 he had designated City Superintendent of Police,

Urla, Raipur B.B.S. Rajput as Investigation Officer for crime no. 44/07 of

police station Ganj and on 24.05.2007 had constituted a team of

investigating officers under leadership of Ajatshatru Bahadur Singh,

Additional Superintendent of Police, for investigation of aforesaid crime,

which is Exhibit P 180 and in this case, the proposal for the permission to

prosecute was sent to the Chief Secretary, Home, Chhattisgarh Government

which is Exhibit P181. Supporting aforesaid facts, witness B.B.S. Rajput (PW

97) has said that upon him being appointed Investigation Officer vide order

of Superintendent of Police Raipur, Exhibit P 345, he has investigated this

case. In compliance of the aforesaid order, B.S. Jagrit had sent case diary

as per case summary, Exhibit P346, which he had received on 07.05.2007.

23. As per the prosecution, accused Piyush Guha is stated to have stayed

in various hotels in Raipur, in which regard witness Rajkumar Naamdev (PW

2) has stated that he is the manager of Mahindra Hotel, Raipur. Police had

seized the register of the said hotel vide seizure memo, Exhibit P 2. In this

regard, the seized register is article A-11, according to which accused

Piyush Guha had stayed in room no. 109 on 17.04.2007 and on 01.05.2007in the aforesaid hotel which finds mention in the register, Article A-11. Copy

of aforesaid page of above mentioned register is Article A-11C. Similarly,

police had seized the bill book of above mentioned hotel vide Exhibit P 3.

The aforesaid seized bill book is article A-12, according to which payment of

Rs 416.00 for staying in the hotel on 17.04.2007 and Rs. 412.00 for staying

on 01.05.2007 has been made against bill receipt no. 336 and 388. The

said facts have also been supported by witness Balram Moti (PW-09) in his

statement. The said witnesses have stated that they do not remember the

fact of accused Binayak Sen coming to meet Piyush Guha in the hotel,

because of which these witnesses have been declared hostile by the

prosecution.


15/54

24. According to witness Suresh Chandra Yadu (PW-4), he is the owner of

Gitanjali Hotel Raipur which is situated at Station Chowk, Raipur. His hotel is

about 1000-1500 feet from the Samrat Talkies. Police personnel had seized

the Visitors' Register of his Hotel Gitanjali; the relevant seizure memo isExhibit P 8 and the seized register is Article A-13, which shows on page

number 1088 the arrival of accused Piyush Guha to his hotel on 22.09.2006

and his departure on 23.09.2006. This witness has stated that accused

Piyush Guha stayed in the said Hotel on 12.10.2006, 07.12.2006 and

12.01.2007. This witness has been declared hostile for not supporting the

prosecution case further but according to the above statements of this

witness, the facts of accused Piyush Guha coming to Raipur from time to

time and having stayed in hotels as stated above are proved.

25. Here, it will not be out of context to mention that during recording of

evidence of this witness in court, the defence raised objection when

questions were being put by the prosecution regarding the distance

between Hotel Gitanjali and Hotel Samrat, and about the facts mentioned at

page no. 1088 of article A-13, saying that the prosecution cannot ask these

questions from this witness. But the said objection appears to be unfounded

because the distance of the hotels situated near the incident site, and the

distance to prominent places and facts mentioned at page no. 1088 of

article A-13, are facts and circumstances relevant to the case and hence

the objection is overruled.

26. Regarding the involvement of accused Piyush Guha in Naxalite and

criminal activities, A.R.Kunjam (PW-19) has stated that he was posted as

Assistant Jailor in Central Jail, Raipur from 2004 to 2008. On 31.07.07, the

police had seized the Register No. 16 of warrant branch for undertrial

prisoners on his producing it. Seizure memo is Exhibit P 52, which contains

his signature, according to which Piyush Guha was admitted to Central Jail,

Raipur on 09.05.2007. At that time his name, parentage and address was

enteredin the above mentioned register. Production Warrant was received

for producing accused Piyush Guha before CJM Court, Purulia, which is

mentioned in the register. A case was pending against accused Piyush Guha

before CJM Court, Purulia, under section 121, 121(A), 122, 123, 427, 323,

326, 506, 307 of IPC and 3, 4 C.S.Act and 25 Arms Act. Accused Piyush

Guha was sent on 3.06.2007 for production before CJM Court, Purulia, and

returned from Purulia on date 15.09.2007 which is entered under serial

number 21 in another register. Admission of the accused Piyush is

registered at serial no. 835 of Register number 18, which has the signature

of Piyush Guha. The above said register is Exhibit P 53 whose part A to A is

accused Piyush Guha. The photo copy of register is at Exhibit P 53C. Thereturn of Piyush Guha from Purulia is entered in register no. 21, at serial no.


16/54

3005. The register is Exhibit P 54, and its photocopy is Exhibit P 54C.

Abovementioned facts have been supported by Investigating Officer

B.B.S.Rajput (PW 97) and Dilip Kumar Dev (PW 48) and Sadhan Kumar

Pathak (PW 93).

27. According to the statement of Dilip Kumar Dev (PW 48), during his

tenure in CID he went to P.S. Bandwan, District Purulia for the investigation

of crime no. 20/2005. During investigation, he investigated the FIR of P.S.

Bandwan, Exhibit P 138, and presented the concerned chargesheet for the

trial in the court of C.J.M. Purulia. The accused had been charged in the

aforementioned chargesheet. The same statement has been given by

Sadhan Kumar Pathak (PW 93). According to the statement of this witness,

he was In-charge of the police station Bandwan, District Purulia (West

Bengal) on 04.10.2005. He went to the Gudpana C.R.P.F. Centre, which falls

within the jurisdiction of his police station, after getting the news of its

demolition. Upon reaching there, he saw that the camp, which had been

under construction, had been blown by fixing land mines all around, which

had caused the whole camp to be demolished. After inquiring, he got to

know that about 150 Maoists from Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and West

Bengal had carried out the whole incident. He registered Crime no. 20/05

on his return to the police station. He mentioned the details of people

involved in columns 7 and 12. The copy of the FIR of Crime no. 20/05 P.S.

Bandwan is Exhibit P 138C, which is three pages long, and has been signed

by him. The chargesheet of this Crime number has been produced in the

Purulia court, West Bengal. Aforementioned chargesheet and chargesheets

against accused Piyush Guha and other accused have also been produced.

The said statements of these witnesses stayed consistent in their cross

examinations. Thus, the involvement of accused Piyush Guha in Naxalite

and criminal activity is confirmed.

28. About accused Narayan Sanyal being involved in Naxalite and

criminal activities, Additional Sub Inspector Ram Kumar Sahu (PW 32) says

that he was posted in D.K.S. police station, Gol Bazaar in July 2007 and, onorders of senior officers, had gone to Bhadrachalam and Khammam (Andhra

Pradesh) and met the Superintendent of Police regarding documents

pertaining to the incident, and had obtained the remand application given

by the Circle Inspector, Bhadrachalam, FIR no. 5/2006 dated 03.01.2006

registered in Bhadrachalam, district Khammam police station, and the

statements of C.H. Deva Reddy and B. Ashok Kumar. All these documents,

Articles A-47, A-48, A-49 and A-50 respectively, were attested by S.D.O.P.,

Bhadrachalam, and were handed over to the investigation officer, Police

Station Ganj. According to head constable, G. Ramprasad (PW 47), he was

posted as Head Constable at Bhadrachalam town police station on January

2006. On 3rd January, 2006, upon a report by Sub Inspector C.H.


17/54

Devareddy, a case was registered on the FIR 5/06 in the Bhadrachalam

police station. Inspector B. Ashok Kumar (PW 58) has stated that in January

2006, he was posted as Police Circle Inspector at Bhadrachalam police

station. In Bhadrachalam police station, Crime no. 5/2006 was registered

under sections 120B, 121, 121A, 124A, 415, 199 of the Indian Penal Code,

section 25, Arms Act, section 8, Andhra Pradesh Security (Prevention) Act,section 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act 1932, sections 10/13, Unlawful

Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and sections 3/6 , Indian Wireless and

Telegraph Act, 1993. The above mentioned FIR is Article A-48 which has

been investigated by him, and the accused in this incident is Narayan

Sanyal alias Naveen Prasad alias Bijay alias Vijay, s/o J.N. Sanyal, 66 years,

resident of Kolkata, said to be living in Raipur at that time. He [Narayan

Sanyal] was arrested by Sub Inspector C.H. Devareddy and was produced in

Bhadrachalam court by him after making a remand report.

29. According to the statement of B. Ashok Kumar (PW 58), having found

the case of accused Narayan Sanyal being involved in aforesaid criminal

sections established during investigation, he had submitted the charge

sheet in the Sessions Court, Khammam, where trial is still pending. The

remand report is Article A-62, which is four pages long, bearing his

signature and the chargesheet is Article A-67, which is in three pages long,

bearing his signature.

30. Supporting above stated facts, Sub Inspector C.H. Devareddy (PW 59)

has said in his statement that he was posted as Police Station In-charge in

Bhadrachalam Town, Andhra Pradesh from September 2004 to November

2007. On 03.01.2006, at night during patrolling, he received information

that some person belonging to the top Maoist cadre is roaming in the

Bhadrachalam bus stand area. Thereupon, he went to the Bhadrachalam

bus stand with a patrolling party and saw one person in suspicious

circumstances, who is present in the Court today. Witness, pointing

towards accused Narayan Sanyal, stated that he was the same person

whom he had seen at the bus stand under suspicious circumstances.Afterwards, he had questioned him. On being questioned, he did not give

any satisfactory answers. Upon his search, a bag was recovered from

accused Narayan Sanyal, in which, one pistol loaded with six live cartridges,

2 walkie-talkies of Motorola, Rs. 13,000 cash, seven Bengali books, one

Hindi book, one spiral book, 15 Maoist confidential documents, one letter in

two folds, one driving license belonging to Ajay Chaudhary containing his

photograph issued by R.T.O. Ranchi were found. A search memo was

prepared in the presence of witnesses. On being inquired about his name

and address, the person stated his name to be Narayan Sanyal alias Navin

Kumar alias Vijay alias Subodh etc, residing at Raipur, with a permanent

address of Kolkata. He stated himself to be a Member of Central Committee


18/54

of C.P.I Maoist and a member of its Politburo. Above said documents and

articles were brought to the police station after being seized, and its report

is registered as Crime no. 5/2006.

31. Assistant Sub Inspector Sukhau Ram (PW 34) testified that on June

2007, he was the head constable in the Jangla Police Station in Bijapur

district. On 09.08.2007, on receiving a complaint, he filed Crime no.

17/2007 in Jangla police station. In this connection, a chargesheet has been

filed in the Dantewada court. Certified copy of the complaint in connection

with Crime no. 17/07 is shown as Exhibit P 124. The defendants have not

challenged the stated facts. Sub Inspector Vipendra Ram Yadav (PW 40)

testified that on April 2005, he was Assistant Sub Inspector in Konta police

station. On 19.04.2005, on the report of Nagesh, he filed the FIR. A

complaint was registered on the basis of this FIR and investigated. In the

investigation, he found evidence against accused Narayan Sanyal and filed

a chargesheet in Dantewada court. This witness further testified that

accused Narayan Sanyal is a hardened Naxalite. Certified copies of the FIR

and the chargesheet of Crime No. 09/2005 from Konta police station are

shown as Exhibit P 130 and Exhibit P 131. Certified copy of Narayan

Sanyal's arrest memo is shown as Exhibit P 132.

32. Inspector Vijay Thakur (PW 41) corroborated the above facts in his

statement and further said that from 31.03.2003 to 06.05.2006 he wasPolice Station In-charge at Konta police station. In Konta police station

under Crime no. 09/2005, he arrested the accused Narayan Sanyal. His

signature can be found on this arrest memo, Exhibit P 132. As Police Station

In-charge, he is familiar with the jurisdiction of his police station. Accused

Narayan Sanyal is a Naxalite offender and he was active in Sukma and

Konta areas. Ayatu, Hidma, Jiyanna, Deva and Mangu were also among

such Naxalites. Those who worked in the urban network of the Naxalites

used to participate in their meetings. Narayan Sanyal, Ramanna, Gopanna,

Binayak Sen, Rajendra Sail and Pradeep Singh were among the people who

attended these meetings.

33. Binayak Sen's counsel objected to the testimony of witness Inspector

Vijay Thakur (PW 41) on grounds that he was making a statement

contradicting his statement under section 161 Cr.PC and was talking about

Binayak Sen attending these meetings. Since the witness was deposing

under Main Examination, he could not be stopped from giving evidence and

the accused would have the opportunity to cross examine the witness,

hence, the objection was overruled as insubstantive.


19/54

34. Inspector Vijay Thakur (PW 41) testified that he knows the accused

Binayak Sen, and he also knows Amita Shrivastav and Shankar Singh. He

knew them through newspaper reports. During the deposition, when he was

shown pictures of Amita Shrivastav and Shankar Singh, accused Binayak

Sen's counsel raised a serious objection. Since information about Amita

Singh [sic] and Shankar Singh absconding was given by the investigatingofficer, and documents related to Amita Singh [sic] and Shankar Singh are

present in the case, this objection was overruled.

35. According to Inspector Vijay Thakur (PW 41), Amita Shrivastav and

Shankar Singh also frequently met with Naxalites. The photos presented to

this witness were identified as Shankar Singh, Exhibit P 60, and Amita

Shrivastav, Exhibit P 61.

36. Sher Singh Bande (PW 49) testified that he was Sub Inspector in

Chhuria police station on 06.04.2007. He knows the accused. During his

deposition, he even identified the accused by name. He said further that

Chhuria police station is adjacent to Maharashtra and Naxalites were active

in the area. In the Chhuria police station area, local Naxalite squads Jobe

and Devri were active. Top level state and central committee Naxalite

meetings took place in Chhuria area. In this area, Vishnu Milind Thumbde,

Shankar, Ashok, Parvati, Ganesh and women Naxalites Varsha, Urmila and

Amita were also active. Binayak Sen and Ilina Sen also used to come tothese meetings. Accused Narayan Sanyal was also active in the Chhuria

area. PUCL people met Naxalites in the Chhuria area. Amita and Shankar

are hard core Naxalites. Narayan Sanyal is also a hardcore Naxalite. On

21.05.2007, Naxalites were meeting in Bijepar and Jhadikhedi forests. When

they were surrounded, they ran away. Various items were recovered from

the spot. In this connection, Crime no. 113/07 was registered. After

investigation, a chargesheet was filed in Rajnandgaon court, Exhibit P 137.

When the said crime number was included as Exhibit 137, the Counsel for

the accused raised an objection on the ground that this cannot be done

because the said document was not presented along with the chargesheet.Since this witness was deposing under Main Exination, and since the

document presented were relevant to his statement and for the resolution

of the case, the objection was overruled. According to this witness, Article

A-51 to A-55 in the original were brought by him personally, while typed

copies of these articles were previously attached to the case proceedings,

the typed copies being Articles A-56 to A-61. The witness authenticated his

signature on the seizure memo, Exhibit P 137. The counsel for the accused

did not contradict any of the above stated facts during cross-examination,

and their aforesaid statements remained uncontradicted in the cross-

examination.


20/54

37. Additional Sub Inspector Dheeranand Jha (PW 60) testified that in

August 2008, under instructions of the Superintendent of Police Raipur, he

went to Giridih (Jharkhand). There he took the statement of Sub Inspector

Parameswar Shukla, Suburban Giridih police station. In the Suburban Giridih

police station, the incident which occurred on 11.11.2005 was registered as

Crime no. 205/05. The incident involved nearly 300 Maoist Naxalitescommitting property loss and murders. According to him, accused Narayan

Sanyal was mainly involved in these incidents.

38. Additional Sub Inspector H C Jadhav (PW 62) testified that on

12.08.2008, under instructions from the Superintendent of Police Raipur, he

went to investigate cases in Balrampur, West Bengal, where he took the

statement of Sadhan Kumar Pathak. There was a police camp under

construction in Bandwan where nearly 140-150 Maoists had gathered, and

they attacked the camp in Gudpana that was being constructed, and

destroyed it with landmines. In this connection, a crime was registered in

the Bandwan police station. Certified copy of this is shown as Exhibit P 105.

In this case, Vijay Da's name came to the surface. This witness said that the

accused Narayan Sanyal present in the court is also known as Vijay Da.

39. Inspector B.S. Kerketta (PW 66) testified that from 17.09.2008, to

August 2008, he was Police Station In-charge in Kirandul police station. In

Kirandul police station, village Arahanpur was a CRPF centre. In jointsearches by CRPF and district police forces, there was an encounter with

Naxalites in which three Naxalite bodies were recovered. The remaining

Naxalites escaped. Several items were recovered from the spot including

machine gun, old bag, tiffin bomb, cartridges, detonators, electric wire,

battery, pamphlet, Prabhat magazine, Peoples War journal etc. and a photo

of the accused Narayan Sanyal. Prabhat magazine carried an article

regarding protests against Comrade Sanyal's arrest. The seizure memo in

this regard, and certified copies of the Peoples War magazine and Prabhat

magazine were brought by him. Certified copy of the seizure memo is

shown as Exhibit P 174, FIR as Exhibit 175. Certified copies of PrabhatPatrika and Peoples War Journals are shown as Exhibits P 176 and P 177.

The witness was not challenged by the defence, neither during deposition

nor during cross examination.

40. Inspector Parameswhar Shukla (PW 79) testified that he was Circle

Inspector, Police in Sadar Subdivision, Giridih, Jharkhand in 2008. On date

11.11.2005, in Town police station, Giridih, Crime 285/05 was registered

under sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 353, 427, 435, 387, 307 and 302

IPC. The FIR of this is shown as Exhibit P 184. Upon investigation, he foundinvolvement of accused Narayan Sanyal in crime 285/05. A report to this


21/54

effect, shown as Exhibit P 201 and bearing his signature was sent by

Superintendent of Police Giridih to Superintendent of Police Raipur. In this

connection, covering memo is shown as Exhibit P 202 bearing the signature

of Superintendent of Police, Giridih. This witness further said that in his

state, Jharkhand, CPI Maoist is a banned organisation. Accused Narayan

Sanyal is a politburo member of the Maoist organisation. He got aproduction warrant for Narayan Sanyal from Giridih CJM court and sent it to

Raipur court, so that Narayan Sanyal could be taken to Giridih for Crime no.

292/05.

41. Somprakash Pushkar (PW 89) testified that he went to Andhra

Pradesh with the necessary documentation in order to obtain information

regarding Narayan Sanyal alias Vijay alias Naveen Prasad. He went to the

Intelligence Department with these documents. On the basis of these

documents, he was given information in 21 pages, which is shown from

Exhibit P 262 to Exhibit P 287. Said facts were corroborated by Magiram

Varma (PW 80), who said that he was in the Special Crime Intelligence

Department, Police Headquarters, Raipur, and worked as a steno under the

Inspector General, Police. The information gathered from the Andhra

Pradesh Intelligence Department was sent by Deputy Inspector General,

Special Crime Intelligence Branch, Police Headquarters Raipur to

Superintendent of Police, Raipur through a memorandum. This memo is

shown as Exhibit P 88. This bears the signature of Deputy Director General

of Police, Pavan Dev. The information in this memo is shown as Exhibit P

262 to Exhibit P 287. The statement of this witness was not challenged by

the accused. Thus this witness's statement is also uncontradicted in the

cross examination.

42. Examining the prosecution witnesses stated above, and the Exhibits,

the fact of accused Narayan Sanyal's being a member of the politburo of

the Maoist organisation, and being involved in the incidents and crimes

cited above is established.

43. As far as accused Dr Binayak Sen's involvement in Naxalite activities

is concerned, Prosecution Witness Anil Kumar (PW 1) in Section 3 of his

statement said that accused Piyush Guha, on being questioned about where

he had acquired the documents seized from him, replied that Binayak Sen

used to go to meet with Narayan Sanyal in jail and that that was how the

said letters were given to Dr. Binayak Sen.

44. Inspector BS Jagrit testified that on 09.05.2007, he went to accusedBinayak Sen's house for search. However, as the house was locked, he


22/54

returned. On 15.05.2007, he went to Binayak Sen's house to conduct the

search and issued summons to the witnesses under Section 100 of CrPC,

shown as Exhibit P 13. On that day Binayak Sen was told to open the locks

who at that time said that A/26 Surya Apartment, Katora Talab, Raipur was

owned by his wife Ilina Sen. Since she was not present, the house was

sealed and this was videographed. The memo for this by BS Jagrit is shownas Exhibit P 15. The memo bears signatures of Dr Binayak Sen and BS

Rajput. On 17.05.2005, they went to accused Binayak Sens house. But

even on that day, Ilina Sen was not there and the search could not be

completed. Memo for this is shown as Exhibit P 7 which was prepared as

per the direction of CSP, Urla, BBS Rajput. On 18.05.2005, a letter was

written to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Raipur regarding her presence

during the search of accused Dr. Binayak Sen's house as per the CJM

Raipur's previous search warrant, and the CJM Raipur's permission was

taken. The document is Exhibit P 347.

45. BS Jagrit (PW 95) further said that on 19.05.2005, he went to the

accused Binayak Sen's house for search at A/26 Surya Apartment, Katora

Talab and found both Binayak Sen and Ilina Sen to be present. In their

presence, the seal was broken and Ilina Sen opened the lock. The memo for

this is shown as Exhibit P 18, the seizure memo for the broken seal is shown

as Exhibit P 19. Before the search, police personnel and witnesses gave a

body search, the memo for this is shown as Exhibit P 16. Women police also

gave a body search and the panchanama for this is shown as Exhibit P 17.

Binayak Sen and Ilina Sen's signatures are there on the panchanama.

During the search, a small yellow book regarding merger between the

Communist Party of India Marxist Peoples War [sic] and the Maoist

Communist of India (sic) MCCI, Peoples March special issue of November-

December 2004, a total of 16 pages, one letter from Madan Lal Barkade,

addressed to Comrade Binayak Sen, one English note on Andhra Pradesh

Human Rights and Naxalite groups (sic) in 3 pages, one photocopy of a 4-

page handwritten note in English, in which world globing of republic of

present state (sic) and other important things were written, Krantikari

Janwadi Morcha (RDF), Globalisation and Indian Service Sector's Shine, total

of 8 pages, one post card which was addressed to accused Binayak Sen, in

which the senders name was Narayan Sanyal, a total of 10 paper cuttings,

and one Salwa Judum book were found and seized in the presence of

witnesses as per seizure memo Exhibit P 20. Said seized materials were

serially numberered from Articles A-19 to A-36. In the same way, from the

said house, one computer CPU of LG company and 8 CDs were seized in the

presence of witnesses. The seizure memo for this is shown as Exhibit P 21.

The said CPU was marked as Article A-46 and seized CDs numbered serially

from Article A-38 to A-45.


23/54

46. The abovementioned seizure memo was corroborated by witness

Shyam Sundar Rao (PW 12) and BBS Rajput (PW 97) and the seizure of

abovementioned items was authenticated. During examination by the

prosecution, even accused Dr. Binayak Sen himself identified all the Articles

A-19 to A-36 and A-38 to A-48 as articles seized from his house except for

Article A-37. Counsel for accused Binayak Sen cross-examined the saidwitnesses with regard to the seizure of the abovementioned items at length

and it was suggested that Article A-37 was not seized from accused Dr

Binayak Sen's house. This was not accepted by the witnesses. From this it is

established that Article A-37 was also recovered from Binayak Sen's house.

In this way, according to the statements of witnesses BS Jagrit (PW 95),

Shyam Sundar Rao (PW 12) and BBS Rajput (PW 97), it is clearly established

that Article A-19 to Article A-46 were seized from accused Dr. Binayak Sens

house A/26 Surya Apartment, Katora Talab, Raipur from his sole possession.

47. As regards Article A-8 to Article A-10 being letters written by accused

Narayan Sanyal, witness Sub Jailor C.S. Kaul (PW 15), has said in his

statement that he was Sub Jailor in Raipur jail from 18.08.2006. On

27.12.2006, he was on supervision duty in both the octagons of the Raipur

jail. At that time, he saw prisoner Ramesh given something by accused

Narayan Sanyal. On being questioned, Ramesh told him that a letter was

given to him by Narayan Sanyal to be given to prisoner Dhiraj Mohali. He

took the letter from Ramesh. It was in English and in another language

which he could not understand. He gave the said letter to the Jail

Superintendent. This incident was entered into the Order Book by the Jail

Superintendent and his signature was taken. The order book is shown as

Exhibit P 24 and photocopy of it as P 24C. The letter is shown as Article A-

14. The letter of Article A-14 and order book of Exhibit P 24 were seized

according to seizure memo of Exhibit P 25. The witness further said that

during his tenure, Narayan Sanyal used to get things from outside the jail

by submitting applications. These applications are shown as Exhibit P 27 to

Exhibit P 45. These were seized from him by the police as per the seizure

memo of Exhibit P 26.

48. In this connection, witness Ramesh (PW 16) did not support the

prosecution statements and tried to mislead the court by giving roundabout

answers. The court feels that his testimony is not reliable. However, the

said facts were corroborated by witness Niranjan Singh (PW 17) in his

testimony, and the seized applications of Exhibits P 30 and P 31, seized as

per seizure memo Exhibit P 47, and applications of exhibit P 27 to Exhibit P

45, seized as per seizure memo of Exhibit P 26, from Narayan Sanyal, are

described as being seized by the police in his presence. Prosecution witness

RS Yadav (PW 28) testified that he was Assistant Jailor from 11.11.2004 to

April 2008 in Raipur Central Jail. During his posting, on date 08.05.2006,


24/54

accused Narayan Sanyal was given paper and pen, upon which he (i.e.

Narayan Sanyal) wrote applications as in Exhibit P 40 to Exhibit P 45 for

buying things.

49. Witness KL Deshmukh (PW 29), in his testimony has mentioned that

the letter of Article A-24 was written by accused Narayan Sanyal and sent

to accused Binayak Sen. Thus it is established that Exhibit P 27 to Exhibit P

45 are written by Narayan Sanyal. This has been accepted by Narayan

Sanyal in his defence statement. Mannu Lal (PW 24) in his testimony said

that he was Head Constable in the Ganj police station in June 2007. At that

time, on 26.6.2007, under directions from Senior Superintendent of Police,

he carried sealed documents mentioned in this context as per the

memorandum, Exhibit P 80, of the Senior Superintendent of Police and

submitted to the Director of the State Disputed and Questionable

Documents Examination, Raipur. The 'receipt' of the documents being

delivered on that day is shown as Exhibit P 81. Mannu Lal's testimony was

not challenged in cross examination.

50. Witness NK Sikkewal (PW 30) testified that he is in the Chhattisgarh

State Police headquarters and examines documents. On 28.6 2007 the

letter Exhibit P 80, Ganj police station crime no. 44/07 was brought to him

from the Superintendent of Police of Raipur for examination. He examined

all the documents intensively and with due diligence. He had red circled thedisputed documents and marked them Q1 and Q2 and Q 2/1.These are

shown as Article A-9 and Article A-8. In the same way, he numbered the

natural handwriting from N1 to N 1/1 and N 2 to N20. This numbering is

done as follows: N1 Article 24, and N2 Exhibit P 30, N 3 Exhibit P 31, and

from N4 to N13 Exhibit P34 to Exhibit P41, respectively; N 14 Exhibit P027;

N 15 Exhibit P 42, N 16 Exhibit P 43, N 17 Exhibit P 44, and N 18 Exhibit P

45, N 19 Exhibit P 28, and N20 Exhibit P 29. According to the testimony of

this witness, the sample handwritings were numbered S 1 to S24, which are

shown as Exhibit P 91 to Exhibit P 114.

51. Witness Additional State Examiner, NK Sikkewal (PW30), testified that

upon examination of the said documents he found that the person who

created the documents and wrote S1 - S24 and N1 to N1/1 and from N2 -

N20, is the same person who wrote the red marked documents Q1 and Q2

and Q 2/1. The opinion given by him is shown as Exhibit P 115. In this, his

signature is visible from A to Part A. This certification is shown as Exhibit P

16. This witness has authenticated his signature.


25/54

52. In this manner, the testimonies of the above people established that

according to the seizure memo Exhibit P 1, the letter in English seized from

accused Piyush Guha was written by accused Narayan Sanyal himself.

According to prosecution, accused Narayan Sanyal gave these letters to

accused Binayak Sen during his visits to be given to accused Piyush Guha

for taking them to Kolkata.

53. Witness SK Mishra (PW 25) testified in connection with the meetings

between accused Binayak Sen and accused Narayan Sanyal, and said that

he has been jail superintendent in Central Jail Bilaspur from 31.06.2008.

From November 2006 to April 2008 he was jail superintendent in Raipur jail.

He said the jail maintained a separate register for recording visitors to

undertrials. He knew accused Narayan Sanyal who was lodged in Raipur jail

during his tenure. On account of his involvement with Naxalites, accused

Narayan Sanyal was under surveillance. The police had carried out the

seizures from him of letter relating to Narayan Sanyal and the order book as

per seizure memo Exhibit P 25. The witness further said that the police

asked him for the list of people meeting undertrial Narayan Sanyal. He gave

them the list in a 3-page letter bearing his signature, Exhibit P 83. The

entries in the list, from 1 to 88 are at Exhibit P 84 and a photocopy of the

register recording visits is shown as Exhibit P 48C with his signatures.

Exhibit P 49C shows that the meetings in Exhibit P 49C were conducted by

jailor Keshar and SR Thakur, and Column 11 bears their signatures.

54. Witness Ravindra Upadhyay (PW 38) testified that accused Piyush

Guha told him that accused Dr Binayak Sen used to go to jail to meet

accused Narayan Sanyal. Narayan Sanyal gave these letters (Articles A-8,

A-9 and A-10) to accused Dr. Binayak Sen. Accused Binayak Sen gave the

letters to Piyush Guha for taking to Kolkata. Witness SR Thakur (PW 43)

testified that from 24.02.1999 to 28.05.2007, he was sub jailor in Central

Jail Raipur. Outsiders who had to meet with the prisoners had to give an

application to Jail Superintendent which is taken by the prison guard to the

jailor. The jailor acts on it and then after granting permission, the meetingtakes place. For important people, the meeting takes place in the office

while for ordinary people the meeting takes place in the meeting room. In

the jail there is a register in connection with meetings, in which full details

of the visitor and the prisoner are written down. On 22.7.2006 Dr Binayak

Sen claiming to be a relative, met with prisoner Narayan Sanyal to discuss

domestic matters. The witness testified that he knows Dr. Binayak Sen who

is present in the court today as the accused. The abovementioned meeting

of Dr. Binayak Sen with accused Narayan Sanyal on 22.07.2006 is entered

at serial number 24. The said register is shown as Exhibit P 49 and bears

signatures of himself, Dr Binayak Sen and Narayan Sanyal.


26/54

55. Witness SR Thakur (PW 43) testified that Exhibit P 49 register entries

number 28, 30, 65, 69, 71, 73, 75, 78, 79, 80, 85, 86 respectively for

04.08.2008, 12.06.2006, 21.12.2006, 05.01.2007, 12.1.2007, 19.2.2007,

26.02.2007, 14.03.2007, 17.03.2007, 29.03.2007, 08.04.2007, 18.04.2007,

were dates on which accused Binayak Sen came to meet accused Narayan

Sanyal claiming that he was meeting him as a relative to discuss householdmatters. In the said register, accused Dr Binayak Sen, accused Narayan

Sanyal and Thakur himself had signed in columns 9, 10 and 11 respectively.

This witness said that the Article A-14 letter and order book Exhibit P 24

were seized according to seizure memo P 25. This witness testified that he

had signed as the officer in the column 11 in the register P 49 for entry

numbers 24, 28, 30, 65, 68 and 71 and 73, 75, 76, 79 80 and 85. This

witness in his cross examination acknowledged that in applications

submitted by accused Dr Binayak Sen for meetings with accused Narayan

Sanyal, he did not write saying that he was his relative.

56. Witness Jailor PKS Chauhan (PW 51) also testified that he was jailor in

Central Jail Raipur from 11.11.2004 to 18.12.2006. During this time, he had

arranged for the meetings of accused Narayan Sanyal with Bhishm Kingar,

Madhav Sanyal, Bula Sanyal and Dr. Binayak Sen. These are recorded as

entries in register, Exhibit P 49. According to the entries, the accused in the

present court, Dr Binayak Sen, met with accused Narayan Sanyal on that

day by declaring that he was his relative. He said columns 9, 10 and 11 in

the register were meant for information regarding visitors, prisoner and the

jailor respectively. According to this witness, on 24.05.2006, 05.06.2006,

19.06.2006, 03.07.2006, 08.07.2006, 19.08.2006, 09.09.2006, 18.09.2006,

25.09.2006, 03.10.2006, 18.10.2006, 24.10.2006, 13.12.2006, 18.11.2006,

27.11.2006, 04.12.2006, and 14.12.2006, accused Binayak Sen represented

himself as accused Narayan Sanyal's relative and met him in his presence.

In this regard, entries in register Exhibit P 40 at serial numbers 38, 41, 43,

44, 45, 48, 52, 55, 60, 61 and 63, carry signatures of Binayak Sen in column

9 from A-1 to A-1, of accused Narayan Sanyal from A-2 to A-2, and of

himself from A-3 to A-3.

57. Witness Jailor RK Singh Keshar (PW 46) gave a similar account in his

testimony. He said he was in Bilaspur jail from 11.11.2005 to 06.07.2007 as

jailor. During this period, on 22.01.2007 advocate Sudha Bharadwaj had

come with accused Binayak Sen to meet with accused Narayan Sanyal.

Register Exhibit P 119 contains this entry wherein accused Binayak Sen

claimed he was accused Narayan Sanyal's brother, which he had entered

and signed.The said register Exhibit P 118 was seized via seizure memo

Exhibit P 136 as per the testimony of witness AP Singh (PW 45), who was

jailor in Bilaspur jail. Seizure memo Exhibit P 136 from section A to A bears

his signature. The abovementioned seizure memo has also been


27/54

corroborated by Inspector BS Jagrit (PW 85) in his testimony. The counsel

for the accused did not challenge these in any way.

58. I H Khan (PW 71) testified that jail superintendent Central Jail Bilaspursent him a list of visitors who met Narayan Sanyal. The letter Exhibit P 118

contained a list of visitors (Exhibit P119) who met with accused Narayan

Sanyal. This was not challenged by counsel for the accused. In any case,

accused Narayan Sanyal and Binayak Sen have accepted in their defence

statement that Binayak Sen came to meet Narayan Sanyal in jail. Although,

the accused during the examination of the accused have denied that the

pretext of relative was used for the meetings, but the uncontradicted

testimony of the witnesses has established that accused Binayak Sen met

with Narayan Sanyal on the various dates cited above by claiming to be his

relative.

59. Regarding the matter of accused Binayak Sen having relationship

with Naxalites, witness Deepak Chaubey (PW 7) in his testimony said that

he knows Dr Binayak Sen and Narayan Sanyal present in the court. Accused

Narayan Sanyal was his tenant. The father in law of this witness, Sashi

Bhushan, owns a house in Daulat Estate, Daganiya, Raipur. It is managed

by the witness and his brother-in-law. When the witness was asked who

came to get the house on rent (for Sanyal), he replied Dr Binayak Sen. On

this, accused Binayak Sen's advocate objected that this was a leadingquestion. However, the special public prosecutor asked this question in the

course of the main examination. No suggestion was made to the witness

nor was any answer suggested to him. Thus, the question does not come

under the purview of Section 141 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and

therefore the objection is baseless and is overruled.

60. Prosecution witness Deepak Chaubey (PW 7) testified that they had

given an advertisement in the newspapers about the rental. Then accused

Binayak Sen, Narayan Sanyal and Amita Shrivastav came to take the houseon rent and on liking the house, accused Narayan Sanyal and Amita

Shrivastav began to stay at the said house on rent paying a monthly rent of

Rs 1500 per month. While taking the house on rent, accused Binayak Sen

said that Narayan Sanyal was his relative. The house was given to Narayan

Sanyal on rent because he was recommended by accused Binayak Sen who

was a respectable citizen. At that time Amita Shrivastav said she was

working in Vivekanand School as a teacher. From then Amita Shrivastav

and Narayan Sanyal lived in that house for 6 to 7 months and in January

2006, when he went to collect the rent, the neighbour informed him that

Andhra Pradesh police raided the house and arrested Narayan Sanyal andthat Amita Shrivastav was absconding. On reading the newspapers, he


28/54

came to know that Narayan Sanyal was a top-level Naxalite and that the

police had announced a reward of 2 to 3 lakh rupees on him. The witness

further said that he read in the newspaper that accused Binayak Sen used

to go to the jail to meet Narayan Sanyal.

61. Manish Daga (PW 08) testified that he was principal in the Jatan Devi

Daga Higher Secondary school Civil Lines. He knew Amita Shrivastav

because in 2004-2005 she used to teach in his school. She was paid Rs

3000 rupees per month. But in March 2005 after leaving, she did not return.

He had read about her Naxalite activities in newspapers. Prosecution

witness Meena Singh Puri (PW 10) testified that she was the vice principal in

Vivekanand Higher secondary school, Danganiya. She said that Amita

(Anita) Shrivastav was a teacher in the school about two years ago. She

came to the job through Ilina Sen. The learned counsel for accused Binayak

Sen objected to this saying that 'Ilina Sen's name is not relevant to the case

and as such this should not be taken into account.' However, since Ilina

Sen is acknowledged by Binayak Sen as his wife and n mentioned by the

prosecution and by the other witnesses, and the question is consistent, the

court overrulesthe said objection.

62. According to the above mentioned statement by Meena Singh Puri

(PW 10), Mrs Ilina Sen introduced Amita Shrivastav saying: 'she needs a job,

keep her'. Amita Shrivastav had an MA in sociology from AllahabadUniversity and spoke good English so she was taken. She worked in the

school for 7 months and then stopped coming to the school. She has not

given any resignation letter either. This witness was cross examined.

During the cross examination, the witness said that Ilina Sen told her that

Amita Shrivastav was known to her and for this reason alone she gave her

the job. Ilina Sen also told her that she had worked in Daga School earlier.

Amita had a CD related to the Second World War Nazi camps. This was

shown to the students in the school. Later it was found that Amita was

connected to Naxalites and had absconded.

63. Witness Arun Kumar Dubey (PW 85) testified that he was in the

Central Bank of India main branch Raipur as the Assistant Manager from

2004 to 2007. He owned a house in Kailashpuri Raipur. He gave two rooms

in the house on rent to a person named Shankar Singh for Rs 1500 per

month. His neighbours and Shankar Singh told him that he was a social

worker. After a few days, Shankar Singh told him that his brother and sister

in law will be staying in the house and he himself would be coming and

going. Shankar Singh told him that his sister in law was a teacher and

brother was a journalist. He [Shankar Singh] said his sister in-law's namewas Amita and he did not remember the brother's name. This witness said


29/54

further that accused Narayan Sanyal and Binayak Sen used to come to

meet with Shankar Singh and Amita. At that time, the accused Binayak Sen

had a beard but not now. When he was shown the photos of Shankar Singh

and Amita, numbered Exhibit P 171 and Exhibit P 61, he recognised them

as his tenants. The witness introduced Amita for opening her bank account

by signing as her introducer in the form. The witness also said that theelectricity bill, Exhibit P 83, was given by his wife to Amita for address proof

because the meter was in his wife's name. Exhibit P 83 bears his wife Veena

Dubey's signature from Part A to A. The prosecution showed this witness a

photo of accused Vinayak Sen in which he had a beard, Exhibit P 172, and a

photo of Narayan Sanyal, Exhibit P 173, and he recognised both correctly.

The above stated facts were also testified to by B.S. Jagrit (PW 95) in his

testimony.

64. According to the statement of witness Sher Singh Bande, Police

Inspector (PW 49), he was posted as Sub-inspector/Station-in-charge in

Chhuriya police station on 04-04-2007 and was promoted to the post of

Inspector in Chhuriya on 12-12-2007. He knows all the accused. This

witness has stated on record that he also knew them by name. According to

the statement of this witness, the Chhuriya police station borders the state

of Maharashtra. Vishnu Milind Tumde, Shankar, Ashok, Parvati and Ganeshu

and female Naxalites Varsha, Urmila and Amita are active in the area.

Accused Vinayak Sen and Ilina Sen attend the meetings of Naxalites.

Accused Narayan Sanyal has been active with Naxalites in Chhuriya area.

The witness further states that PUCL people meet and know Naxalites in the

Chhuriya area. Amita, Shankar, Narayan Sanyal are hardcore Naxalites.

65. Witness inspector C.L. Sirdar (PW 52) states that he was posted at

Farshegarh, district Bijapur, as station in-charge. During this time he

registered crime no. 7/2007 regarding a Naxalite incident, F.I.R. of which is

Exhibit P 138 (true copy Exhibit P138C) which he seized, seizure memo is

Exhibit P 139 (true copy Exhibit P 139C). The aforementioned F.I.R., Exhibit

P 138 carries his signature (Parts A to A). He has also produced theoriginal copy of the confiscated Naxalite literature for evidence, the

photocopy of which is Exhibit P 140. The photocopy of its pages is from

Exhibit P 140C-1 to P 140C-7. The witness has stated that accused Vinayak

Sen, Ilina Sen, Vijjaiyya, PVCAL Department, Rajendra Sayal etc., are

mentioned in Exhibit P 140. The aforementioned witnesses have been

extensively cross-examined by the defence, but their statements have

withstood the cross-examination.

66. Kumari Kakuli Das (PW 21) states that she works as the branchmanager of the Civil Lines branch of the Central Bank of India. The police


30/54

confiscated documents of civil lines branch with her help, which include the

account opening form-proforma 60, rule 11B, form of Amita w/o Manish

Shrivastav, the electricity bill of Veena Dubey, the certificate of tenancy of

Amita from Veena Dubey and computer laser printout. Regarding this, the

seizure memo is Exhibit P 60, carrying her signature. The account opening

form is Exhibit P 61 and the affidavit of Amita Shrivastav is Exhibit P 62, theelectricity bill is Exhibit P 63; Exhibit P 64 and Exhibit P 65 are laser print-

outs of the account of Amita Shrivastav acc. no. 11434, which carries the

no. 1279084420 which is the new no. of account 11434. Exhibit P 68C is a

photocopy of the register of passbook issue which has Amita Shrivastavs

signature. These facts have been seconded by witness Vijay Kumar Laad

(PW 50).

67. Yogendra Khare (PW 22) stated that he worked as senior manager in

the G. E. Road main branch of Central Bank of India, Raipur from 09-04-07

to 27-06-07. The police confiscated some bank documents from him

according to the seizure memo, Exhibit P 55. Exhibit P 56 is a photocopy of

the account of Shankar Singh; Exhibits from P 57 to P 60 are the documents

which were seized from him. The photocopies of these are Exhibits P 57C to

P 60C. These facts have also been vouched for by T.S. Balachandran (PW

20) P. Ramakrishna Rai (PW 23) and Sanjay Kumar Goyal (PW 55).

68. Witness P. Rama Krishna Rao (PW 23) testified that he held the po